5 ms·
The founders were against a standing army, preferring citizen-based militias. Looking at the behavior of Imperial America, one sees the wisdom. I suppose one
by quantumofmalice 8y ago
The founders were against a standing army, preferring citizen-based militias. Looking at the behavior of Imperial America, one sees the wisdom.
I suppose one bright spot in this otherwise dismal time is that both the left and the right mostly agree that we shouldn't be dropping bombs on people.
- matte_black 8y agoWell, at least not on those who don’t deserve it.
- rscho 8y agoWho is to judge who deserves it? The use of force is only justifiable for defense. Defense is clearly not the main focus in US action.
- Y_Y 8y agoWhat about pre-emptive defensive? Defense from uncertainty? Defense from economic hardship? (Whoa! I really just meant to raise the questions, especially in the case of justification for recent US military conflicts. I'm not advocating for anything!)
- Density 8y agoThat's a reason to bomb the boomers, not a backwards country half way around the world.
- josho 8y agoPre-emptive Defence is a euphemism for offence and is an illegal act of war.
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago> What about pre-emptive defensive? Defense from uncertainty? Defense from economic hardships? Each of this items, alone, would justify many countries in the world to suddenly attack US. Better not confuse the concepts of attack and defense.
- nickik 8y agoThose are very easy argument to make. But its very hard to find cases where they apply. Once in a while you have a case where it makes sense, but very seldomly. Most of the time you are much better at defending against uncertainty and economic hardship by putting some money assied rather then building a bunch of tanks.
- rscho 8y agoI am sorry to say that in my view, such an answer implies that you are either extraordinarily naive or nationalistic. In both cases, I see no way that we could ever agree.
- bobwaycott 8y agoBy which you mean attack before someone can attack you? Attack if you’re feeling uncertain about the prospects and outcome of diplomacy? Attack to acquire/open new markets to keep fueling the pipe dream of unfettered and constant economic growth? Each of these notions are but rationales used to start a fight, not defend against one.
- matte_black 8y agoWho is to judge who doesn’t deserve it?
- geofft 8y agoNo one deserves to be bombed. Some people should be stopped, by any effective means, but that's an entirely different calculus. If you had those people in prison, they would not deserve their prison being bombed.
- sneak 8y agoIf the american left and american right agreed on that, we probably wouldn’t have been at war for the last 17 years, sadly.
- twic 8y agoI take it that the point was that the left and the right are anti-bomb, but the centre is strongly pro-bomb.
- quantumofmalice 8y agoThe american left and right (and the maligned center) do agree on it, you can look at the polls on the syrian intervention. That's the insanity. Our foreign policy is controlled by people who do not care what we think.
- Density 8y agoEvidence of a deep state?
- skymt 8y agoMilitary-industrial complex is an older and more precise term.
- pmyteh 8y agoThat political elites (publicly) disagree with the public doesn't mean there's a deep state. It just means that your democracy isn't very responsive. 'Deep state' is being thrown around a lot these days. It's proper meaning is in relation to things like Italy's Propaganda Due lodge: a tightly-connected network of people who are in a strong sense anti-democratic, who are not publicly known but have something of a veto over the actions of an elected government. Some of those features apply to the anti-Trump official world in the US, but only in a much weaker form. And this isn't to do with it, not least because Trump is the one pushing the button.
- rdiddly 8y ago
- protomyth 8y agoWell, the Barbary pirates and War of 1812 pretty much ended that way of thinking for the United States.
- Spooky23 8y agoNot really. The US military was pretty tiny until WW2. The Europeans ignored many of the lessons of the civil war (the first modern war in many ways) because they figured that a bunch of amateur generals fighting with conscripts were not worth learning from.
- bobwaycott 8y agoThat the World Wars vastly increased the size of the US military does not negate the parent’s point that the early 19th century saw a change in the US stance on having a standing army. Edit: fat thumbs typed 18 instead of 19.
- protomyth 8y agoI'm not talking about size versus the Europeans. I am talking about the attitude of the founders towards a standing Army and a Navy. Just buying the original 6 frigates was an total change in attitude. The war before the Civil War, the Mexican–American War, is a perfect example of the change. It was also the training ground for the Civil War generals.
- pdonis 8y ago> the attitude of the founders towards a standing Army and a Navy. Just buying the original 6 frigates was an total change in attitude. I don't think the attitude was the same regarding a standing Navy. Standing Army, yes; the founders were clearly against that. But a major reason for having a standing Navy is to keep conflicts elsewhere from getting to the point where you need an Army--for example, protecting American merchant ships sailing abroad (since the British Navy would no longer protect them), which was what buying the original 6 frigates was for.
- 8y ago
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago> is that both the left and the right mostly agree that we shouldn't be dropping bombs on people. You mean in terms of voters, right? Because in terms of politicians, there seem to be an awful lot of hawks on both sides.
- quantumofmalice 8y agoYes, I mean the people. The center doesn't want war right now either, despite the best efforts of the media to whip up a war frenzy. Our foreign policy is directed by people who do not care what the american people think.
- ajmurmann 8y ago> in this otherwise dismal time While I understand this sentiment I've come to the conclusion that it's wrong and maybe even dangerous. Ultimately it got us Trump. I think this perspective on our current time is mainly cause by how the need cycle works. Someone on the a16z podcast claimed that shorter new cycles lead to more negative reporting. He suggested the thought experiment of a need paper only published every 100 year. It would contain awful stuff like WWI & II, but lots of positive we never think about like the number of diseases that have been eradicated. We have fewer military conflicts, unbelievably better build mortality, fewer famines, more individual freedom. It's not all great but it's so much better than we tell ourselves. According to Russ Roberts a study found that even economists who are pessimistic about our current situation will answer that they'd want to be alive right now when they are asked at what time in history they'd want to live. While I find myself more upset with the current state of things than ever before I must agree. Edit: formatting
- megaman22 8y agoMy half-suspicion is that there is some faction threatened by how swimmingly things have been going for the past year and a half that is trying to stir the pot, and divert attention away from worthwhile national investments into another boondoggle.
- jonnybgood 8y agoThey were against standing armies, but then they changed their mind when the capitol was burned down.
- nickik 8y agoEven then they were still agianst constant warfare. Madison specifically wrote that a society under constant war could not preserve its freedom, and he was mostly right.
- walshemj 8y agoAnd probably also when the French national guard got a bit to radical for the radical liberals that made up the founding fathers and had starting roles in several uprisings.